tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN May 23, 2010 10:30am-1:00pm EDT
these change agents 5978? not a lot of change -- at 78? . >> what kind of conversations do you have with these guys on strategy back in your district office? or back in their district office sns what is the dccc saying to them about their strategy and how they go about trying to win this -- their next election? >> he won't answer it directly. but i think in my reporting, i think they're trying to say that you and even though you're that age and you've been around since the carter administration, you have to try to talk about yourself as a reformer. it's very hard to do. ike skeleton voted against health care bill. so if that's the sort of reform that he is trying to tout nationally, locally it's going to be tough. i think ike skeleton will have to do everything he can to make this race just about his
western missouri district. you know, hey, look what i've you know, hey, look what i've done for you. that's a really hard case to make. >> one thing that representative valholen was saying is that republicans are trying to -- they've test drove this argument of obama and nancy pelosi are the bogeyman and it failed. one argument that he continually brought up was you don't want to hand the keys back over to the republicans because of an -- and then pointing to the economic situation or other thing that is democrats and others might blame on republicans when they were in control. does that argument, though, fly in districts, in these district races when the republican argument trying to nationalize the campaign didn't work? >> great question. president obama uses that exact phrase. i'm not sure who came up with it first. don't give the keys back to the guys who drove the car into the
ditch. what it presumes is you can still make a compelling argument to the voters to remember the days of president bush, remember what you didn't like about president bush, like about president bush, primarily the economic issues, because much more so than the war in iraq, that's what people think about now. and i think the question is two years down the road is that still a compelling argument? and what the other side will be. you guys have been in charge long enough. stop blaming it on those gice. and i think that's going to be the tension in that argument. that argument will work and still does work with liberals, with democratic base, and i was just up in philadelphia for the pennsylvania senate race and arlen spector basically lost because joe sestak got very, very close in the polls and then he turned on the switch and started airing commercials showing articlen specter with george bush, now, this is a democratic primary but immediately sess tack surged ahead and ended up winning comfortably. will that work with centrist
voters? that's the question. i don't know. >> and i asked about rand paul because it did, after he won now he's had a couple interviews and said a couple things that he had to walk back since then. do you see democrats trying to make rand paul a figure in other races, if that ends up as a way to maybe energize their base and to get them to come out? >> that's going to be hard to say right now, because i just don't know that he is quite i think he certainly will in kentucky, in races -- they've got a couple races in kentucky in which they're defending some seats. i think you will definitely see them trying to tie their republican candidates to rand paul. it will be sort of remains to be seen if that becomes a bigger national trend though. >> i think it's hard to get people to focus on rand paul outside of kentucky. but what other democrats are
hoping for is this type of thing will happen in other states and other districts. and that they can increasingly show the republican party to be out of the mainstream. that is under the control of people who are rad kls, or not part of mainstream american political thought. how far they can get with that argument, i don't know. but that's what they're hoping will happen. >> all right. thank you both. >> thank you. >> the senate returns monday at 2:00 p.m. eefrpblt they'll begin work on a 2010 spending bill funding military operations in iraq and afghanistan. the legislation provides 34
billion dollars to fund 30,000 additional troops in afghanistan. as well as 913 million dollars to help haiti recover from januury's earth quake. the chamber also takes up two motions to instruct conferees on the recently passed financial regulations bill. those votes are expected at 5:30 eastern monday. follow the senate live on c-span 12. and the house also returns monday at 12:30 eastern for morning hour speeches and legislative business at 12:00. on its agenda next week, a bill to reauthorize defense department programs in 2011. and a measure that extends tax credits for businesses and unemployment benefits. live house coverage on c-span. >> mexican president calderon told congress this week that the fight against narcotics traffickers along the border can only succeed if the united
states reduces its demand for illegal drugs. in the first address to congress by a foreign national leader this year, president calderon said that the united states must stop the flow of assault weapons and other arms into mexico. this is about 40 minutes. >> >> madam speerker, the president of mexico. >> [applause]
president calderon thank you. president calderon: thank you very much. >> thank you very much. madam speaker, mr. vice president, honorable members of congress, and as we say in mexico ameegas and ameegos, congusto. o stand befo you today. i would like to thank congress and the american people for this invitation. i want to express gratitude to all of you here who have supported mexico during very challenging times.
i will also tell you the mexican americans and all latinos who work every day f the prosperity of this great nation. xico, a young country but very old nation. our roots go back thousands of years. however this year isspecially significant for us. we are crating the bicentennial of our independence , 200 years of being proudly. at the time mexico was the first nation to abolish slavery in all ever continental america. -- in all of continental amera.
and it is exactly 100 years since the mexican revolution, a revolution against oppression, a revolution for justice and democracy. as you can seeexico ws founded on the same values and principles as the uned state of america. we are very oud of this past, however the mexican people and their government are focused on the fure. that is why mexico is a cntry in a continued process of transformation. we are determined to ange, and we are taking the decisions that are going to makeexico a more osperous democracy. one of the main changes taking place in mexicois our commitment to firmly establish
the rule of law. that is why we are deploying the full force of the state to meet organized ime with determination and courage. but let me explain, this fight is not only and not mnly about stopping the drug trade only. it is first and foremost a drive to guarantee the security of mexicafamilies who ar in a threat from the abuses of criminals. as i told the mexican people in my inaugural speech, restoring
public security will not be easy and will not be quick. it will take time, it will take money, and unfortunatelyto our deep sorrow it will deep human life as well. this is a battle that has to be fought because the future of our families is at stake. but i told them then you can be sure of oe thing, this is a battle that united we, the mexican people, will win. we cannot ignore -- we will win,
but we cannot ignore the fact that the challenge to our security has roots on both sides of the border. at the end of the day it's high demand for drugs here and in other places. secretary of state clinton has said, we have set our share of the responsibility. we know that the demand for drugs drives much of this illicit trade. is is a part of our new relationship. we have moved from the suspicious to the past to the cooperations and mutual understanding of the present. let me take this pportunity to congratulate president obama for s recent initiative to reduce the consumption of drugs. hope for the good of both
natis and the tire hemisphere that this succeeds. now let me tell you what mexico is doing to confron another problem. first, we have not hetad to use all the power of the state, including the federal police and ard forces, in order to suppthe local governments that are facing the greatest threat from organid crime. this september i measured t restore orr. the goal i to provideocal governments time and the opportunity to strengthen their security and detailed institutions. second, we are weakening the financial and operational capability of criminal gangs. their operations haveed to record seizures drugs, cash, and weapons from the criminals.
we a hitting them and we are hittinghem hard. the federal forces have also arrested many important felons who are now facing mexican justice, and we have extradited a record number of criminals to face justice here in the united states. third, we are rebuilding our institutions and security forces. especially at federal level. we have more than tripled the federal poli budget since the beginning of my ainistration, and multiplied the size of its force. we are recruiting men and won with values who are better trained, better paid, and better equipped. fourth we are transforming our judicial system to make it more
efficient. are moving to work open on trials that are the bas of your own judicial system. and fifth,e have set up social programs to prent young people from turning crime, including prevention and treatment for addictions. as you can see - we are doing everything we can to fight this threat and to secure our common future. we are fulfilling our duty as a good neighbor, taking care of business in our side of the border. the u.s. is also helping. congress approved the initiative which we greatly appreciate an our administrations are sharing more information than ever to fight crime.
however, there is one issue where mexico needs your cooperation. and that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly guns across the border. i fully expect, let me be clear on this, i fully respect, i admire the american constitution and i uerstand that the purpose of the second amendment is to guantee good american citizens the ability to defend themselves and their nation.
but believe me many of these guns are not going to honest american han. instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals. just to give you an idea we have ceased 75,000 guns and -- seized 75,000 guns and assault weapon inmexico in the last three years and more than 80% o those we have been able to tce came from the united states. if you look carefully, you will notice that the violence in mexico started to grow a coup yes before i took office in 2006. this coincides with the lifting of the assault weapon ban in 2004.
one day criminalin mexico, having gained access to these weapons, decided to challenge the authorities iny country. today these weapons are aimed by the criminals not only at rival gangs but also at mexican civilians and authorities. and with all due respect, if you do not regule the sale of these weapons in the right way, nothing guarantees that criminals here in the united states, with access to the same powerful weapon, will not dide to challenge american authority and civilians. it is true that u.s. government is now carrying out operations againstgun strikes, but it is also true that there are more than 7,0 shots along the border with mexico whe almost
anyone can purchase these powerful wpons. i also fully understand the political sensitivity of this issue. fo i will ask congress to help us with respect and to understandow important it is for us that you enforce your laws to stem the supplies of these weapons to criminals and conser reinstating the assault weapons ban. let us, by way legal way that you consider, let us work together to endhe illegal
trade with threatens mexic and your own people. i havepoken on this issue about security because i know it is a big concern on the american people. however if -- as i say, mexico is a country undergoing deep confirmation and our relationship is about much more than just security. we are turning our economyinto one that is competitive and strong. capable of generating the jobs mexico needs. i believe in freedom, i believe in markets, i believe in all those principles that are able to empower economies and provide well-beingor the people. we are carrying out a set of structural reforms that has been ignored for decades in mexico.
we started, for instance, by reforming the pub lick system and wh this we guarantee the retirement of puic servants and at the same time we will save 30 points of g.d.p. in our public financing. we passed a tax reform that reduce our dependen on oil and allow us to continue financing our development, keeping our public deficit close to 1% of g.d.p. . we also made -- we also made important changes to the oil sector. this would allow th public company to work more flexible contracts to speciazed global
companies. and so become more efficient and increase its operational and financial capacity in order to get more oil and natural gas. this will ensure our energy independence and strengthen regional security as well. and finally, we hav increased invtment in infrastructure from three points of g.d.p. to five points of g.d.p. a year, building the roads, ports, airports and energy plans we need to modernize. it is the highest investment level in infrastructe in decades. these changes are making us a more modern country and a stronger partnerf the united states. the energy rorm, the fiscal reform, the pension reform, the investment in infrastructure
among others have all prepared us for a bter tomorrow but also allow us to overcome the terrible economic crisis last year. then, mexico's economy experienced its worst contctions in morn times. however, thanks to strong regulations, not one cent from taxpayers went to a single bank in mexico last year. we were also able -- we were al able to quickly implement cyclical meures, such as a temporary work program and increase the credits for small businesses. in this way we were able to save hundreds of thousandsf mexican jobs.
we had to face a series of emergencies, any one of which would have derailed our weak country. we faced the perfect storm last year. besides the crisis, we overcame t second worse struck -- drop in several years. and also the outbreak of the h 1n-1 flu virus. i can tell you that mexico is standi tall a stronger and more determined nation than er. a nation and a people. a nation -- a naon and a
people ready to face the future and take the rightful place in the world. and the future starts now now that the mexican economy is recovering. so far this year mexico has created more than 400,000 new jobs. 400,000 new jobs, which is the highest number ever created in a fouronth period in mexico. in the firsquarter, the mexican economy grew 4.3%, and we are expecng growth for this year more than 4% in our ecomy which means amo other things more for our people and more mexicans buying american products. we have made -- we have made
structural reform to modernize our economy and we want more. today, our congress is debating stronger antitrust regulions as well as new labor legislation tt will provide more opportunities for women and young people. my government is auctioning both wireless frequency in order to increase competition and coverage in telecom. mexico is on the right track towards developmt now, and as well as promoting economic prress, we are improving the quality of life of all mexicans on the principle of equal opportunity for all. thanks to opportunidad, mexico
was able to reduce the number f people living in extreme poverty from 35 million in 1996 to 14 million in 2006. this program -- this program reaches six million poorest familiewhich mean one in four mexican. equaopportunity means more and better education, and we have provided scholarships to six million children of -- and at the sameime we are investing more than ever in free public universities and today almost 90,000 students graduate as engineers and technicians every year in my country.
we want all our young people to have the chance to study. equal opportunity means access to health services for everyone . we have tripled the popular health insurance and rebuilt o renovated 1,700 public hospitals and clinics in three years. more than one of eight. it this will allow us to reach a goal any nation would be proud of, universal health coverage by 2012, doctor, medicine and treatment. a doctor, medicine and
treatment for any mican that needs it. equal opportunity means more and better education, poverty fighting programs and universal healtcoverage. by improving opportunities for all, we are giving people one less reason to leave mexo. as you can see, mexico is a country in transformation. is is making us an ever more strategic partner for the ture prosperi of the american people. the world, more global and more interconnected every day. it is also divided into large economic regions. those regions that maximize their comparative advantages will be the ones that succeed,
and we both need to compete with asia and with europe. mexico and the united states are stronger together than they are apart. our economy -- our economic ties have made our economies stronger, and together we can renew our partnship to restore stronger and faster economic growth on both sides of the border. a strongerexico means a stronger united states. let us not forget mecans are the second largest foreign buyer of american goods in the world. and a stronger united states, of course, means a stronger mexico.
so i invite you to work with mexico and consolide north america as the most competitive region in the world. believe in th. let us create more jobs for american workers and more jobs for mexican workers. members of e congress, i'm not a president who likes to see mexicans leave our country searching for opportunities abrd. our communities lose our best people. th hardest working, the most dynamic, the leaders of the communies. each migrant will ner --
this great country as we admire them, we miss them, we are working hard for their rights and we are working really hard for mexico and for the family. today, we are doing the best that we can in order to reduce migration, to create opportunities and to create jobs for mexicans in our own country where their homes are and their families are as many jobs as we can. and mexico will one day be a country in which o people ll find the opportunity that today they look for outside of the country. until then, mexico is determined to assume its responsibilities. for us, migration is not just
your problem. we see migration as our problem as well. my govement -- my government does not favor the breaking of the rules. i fully respect the rights of any country to enact and enforce its own laws, but we today -- but what we need today is to fix a broken and insufficient sysm. we favor -- we favor the establishmt of rules that work and work well for all. so the time has come for the united states and mexico to work tother on this issue.
the time has come to reduce the causes of migration and to turn th into a legal order and cure flow of workers and visitors. we want to provide the mexican people with the opportunities they are looking for. that is our goal. that is our mission as a government, to transform mexico to land of oortunity, to provide to our people with jobs and opportunities to live in peace and to be happy. i want to recognize the hard work and leadership of many of you in the senate and in the house and of prident obama who are determined to find responsible and objective answers to this issue. i am convinced that comprehensive immigration
reform is also crucial to securing our common border. however, i strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in arizona. . it is a la that not only ignores a reality thatannot be erased by decree, but also introduced a terrible idea uing racial profiling as a basis for low perfornce. i agree with the president to say the new law carries a great amount of grief when core values we all care about are breached.
i don't want to deepen the gap between the feeling and emotion between our countries and ou people. i believe in communation, i believe in cooperation. we must find together a better way to face and fix this common problem. finally, the well-being of both our people depends not only in our ability to fe challenges, but global ones as well. that is t case of climate change, that is the case, for instance, of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons in the world.
this is one climate change, one of manity's more pressing problems. global warming demands the commitment of all nations, both developed and develong countries, that is whyexic was the first developing country to commit to emission reduction targets. we are workin hard to make progress in the fight agait climatchge. because of your global leadership, we will need your suort to make the meeting in cancun next november a success. madam speaker, mr. vice
president, honorable members of the united states congress, mexico is a country indeed trsformation, indeed. we are building the future our people deserve. a future of opportunity, a future of feedom, of equality, of rule of law. a future of security in which families and children can go out to wor study,r play without fear. and most of all future in which our childr and theirhildren will seeheir dream come true. i have come here as your nehbor, as your partner, and
as your friend. our two eat nations are joined by geaograph -- geeographer and by history, but more important we are joined by the shared brilliant future. i believe in the future of north america as the strongest, most prosperous region in the world. that is possible. president franklin roosevelt once said that the only limit to our relationization of the wld will be our dots of today. let us move forward with a
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] the >> tonight, remarks from the british house of commons speaker. will also hear from the new british prime minister, david cameron, and the acting labour party leader. then the chancellor of the exchequer gives his nature -- gets his first major speech on the british economy. he talks about cutting public spending and reducing the corporate tax rate. that is tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> it just weeks after the british election which produce a new prime minister and coalition government, if queen elizabeth ii will formally announce her
government's legislative agenda for the new legislature preeiew travel from buckingham palace to the house of lords for one of britain's's -- britain's most celebrated occasions. that's tuesday morning at 5:30 eastern on c-span2. >> in april, the governor of arizona signed a law aimed at prosecuting illegal immigrants. president obama has questioned the law and asked the justice department to review its legality. the law is discussed at this event hosted by the independent women's forum and georgetown university law center. we will hear from legal analysts and state legislators, both in favor and opposed to the new law. this is one hour and 10 minutes.
>> thank you for being here. the reason we are here today is because there has been so much rhetoric and some much talk about the new arizona immigration law. is it racist? does have the potential for inciting racial profiling? is it anti-american? those are what people are against the law say. people who are in support of the law say it is not racial profiling, it is not anti- american. it is simply a way to help states that many feel are besieged by a lot of illegal immigrants crossing the border from mexico into arizona. so we wanted to sit down and talk. you have certainly heard from
people speaking out against the law is actually never read it. we want to speak to people who have read the law and knows what it says. we want them to talk about what is happening on the ground in arizona and talk about the federal government's responsibility is as far as and forcing our nation's immigration laws and cut through the rhetoric and had informed -- have an informed and reasonable discussion about the impact will have other states and the nation as a whole. john kyl. he is here today to speak with us about the new immigration law. senator kyl, thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i was told was supposed to say something to start this off so that we could get a conversation started. i'm not sure that was necessary, but there are a couple of people on the panel who had a hand in
writing or debating the lot in the arizona legislature and some incredibly smart lawyers who i believe can discuss the law and its legal ramifications far better than i. what i was asked to do is to set the stage and ask the question why would arizona do this? what's the big deal? what is causing arizona it to cause what some have described as a result of taking the law into its own hands? we would like to see the jurisdiction in the federal government, but that presupposes the federal government is doing its job in controlling the border and enforcing the laws that this arizona law would attempt to supplement. that is what i want to review with you in the seven to 10 minutes i have been given. it starts with this premise -- the federal government has been ignoring the problem for too long and that problem is an insecure border. that is obviously what led to
this legislation. in september of 1994, when i was not yet elected to the senate but thought i had a pretty good shot at being elected to months later, i met with then attorney- general, janet reno, and said it you don't know about this, but you have a huge problem on the border surrounding the town of nogales. i told her all the things i had learned during my campaign for the senate. after i joined the judiciary committee, sponsored legislation to deal with doubling the number of border patrol agents. we have now done that four times come to the point from where 2000 we had over 17,000 border patrol agents. but the problem goes back a long way. in 1996, it is estimated that 40% of all homicides in the phoenix, ariz. area where results of conflicts among narcotics organizations. now the problem is release of years out of the border. in the last three years, is
estimated there has been as many as 23,000 deaths attributed to these conflicts. i noted one of the news clips in 2006 -- a $2 billion human smuggling ring in phoenix. it is now said that phoenix is the second-largest kidnapping center just after mexico city in the world. in 2009, the statistics on illegal immigrant felony cases in tucson were just under 5000 felony crimes. crimes against illegal immigrants are the ones seldom mentioned, but in many respects are even more horrific. there are heartbreaking. there are not statistics because people do not report the crime is. -- reported crimes. people who run the drug cartels are responsible for most of the human smuggling. they have no heart, take people and drop off in houses in
phoenix, hold them for ransom and communicate with their families in central america or mexico and they will not be released unharmed without the payment of 3000 or $5,000. in the meantime, unspeakable things occurred to these people. they're victimized in the most heinous way imagine. those crimes to not go work -- those crimes go unreported. what burns me is the human rights advocates who criticize the law are unwilling to talk about these crimes against timidity. they are occurring -- these crimes against humanity. they are occurring every day. i one to run through some statistics from the center of the immigration study. we know that the illegal immigrant population in arizona has doubled over a decade for about 300,000 to over 600,000. 22% of the felonies in the county are created by illegal
emigrants. it is estimated it -- is estimated that 17% of those arrested coming across the border illegally have committed crimes or are wanted crimes in the u.s. -- and we're not just talking about misdemeanors. 11% of the state population are illegal immigrants. about 12% of the workers in 2011 were illegal immigrants. in 2007, it was estimated illegal immigrants and their children comprised about one- fifth of the people living in poverty in arizona. about one-third to not have health insurance, about one in six of children attending school, and the population. in 2007, about one-third of household headed by illegal emigrants in arizona used at least one major welfare program, primarily food assistance but also medicaid.
none of these numbers comprise the sec over stares which comprise about 40% of the legal population in the country. -- comprise visa-over stares. i have not even gotten into things like the degradation of the environment, which is you fly over our desert, you see have been ruined with tracks going over them as well as the path from millions of people across the border and the tons of stuff in behind. we start from the premise that the federal government does have an obligation here. the key difference between those of us to of gotten fed up with this problem and those who would solve a different way is a fundamental difference -- they believe the answer is comprehensive immigration reform. i helped to write the 2007 legislation that was our best hope to get comprehensive immigration reform.
i was for that. but it is premised on the idea that the federal government would get serious about the idea of controlling the border. it did not pass because there was a sense the government was not serious about doing it. pending that seriousness, they did not want to do the other things, including amnesty for those who are here illegally. i have asked myself if i was right or wrong about that. what has happened in the meantime since it failed? do we have the problems we have because we did not pass comprehensive immigration reform or because we did not secure the border? and enforce the law? it is not necessary to pass comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border. but it is necessary to secure the border to pass comprehensive immigration reform. some advocates of comprehensive immigration reform, that is the reality, whether you like it or not.
decide which, it happens to be below and right thing to do. -- decide which, at happens to be a law and the right thing to do. those i have talked with his support this same ones we secure the border, the pressure will be off and conservatives won't want to support comprehensive reform. i don't know whether that is true or not. there may be some truth to it, but i think people would more likely to face up to a lot of hard realities on the ground once the border is secure. but i do know this -- it is absolutely wrong for the press did -- for the president have or congress to withhold securing the border in order tt pass comprehensive immigration reform. we have a responsibility to enforce the law and then let's see what happens. i tend to think good things will come from a. that's the difference some of us
have another is some difference here on the panel as well. let me close with a couple of specific things about efforts we of tried to undertake. before eric holder was attorney general, i talked to him about the problem in arizona. i said the department justice had significant responsibilities and i told about operations streamlined, which had been workinggin look -- which had been working in del rio, texas. i had been asking him every month recess since then what would it take in the way of resources, because it is resource intensive copied judges, court rooms, detention space, court clerks and lawyers. that is not permanent fence, but it is hiring people for a year or two or three until the problem is resolved. i have never got an answer from him. it became so frustrating when the department of a lens securities it we cannot get the information either.
congress passed a law issuing a report to report to us the resources that would be required to implement operation streamline in the areas we think it might do some good. that report still has not been given to us. i have talked to the secretary of the department of all meant security. she says there waiting on the attorney-general. we've talked to them both in the last month and nothing still. the budget this year from the administration called for exactly 1 mile of fencing. it cut the number of border patrol agents by 187. when the secretary says the borders are secure as they have ever been, there is one sense in which certain sectors that is true. because of the recession, apprehensions are down overall. but, the border has been far more secure than it is today. that's an excuse for not taking action that is necessary.
can we secure the border? the answer is yes. look at the del rio and yuma sectors of the border with mexico. in the yuma section, there's almost no attempt at crossing. they have a 11 miles of very good sense, double fencing that enables border patrol agents to get to any attempted crossing in time. they have enough border patrol agents and they have operations streamline. operation streamlined says when somebody tried to cross the border illegally, even the first time, we will prosecute them for it and it will spend 14 days in jail. 17% of these people are criminals and don't want to take the chance. the rest of them are coming here to work and cannot stand to be in jail instead of making money. so there were not enough to tensions bases to do this area-
wide. they started district 8 or area 8 of the sector and then area 9 and 10. anybody who tried to cross in those areas, they went right to jail. it did it twice, but at 30 or 60 days and stopped doing it. it became a determined -- it became a deterrent. they moved out further and further until the entire sector was covered by the proposition that if you cross, you were going to jail. as a result, the illegal immigration in just five years in left-center has gone from over 118,000 down to 6000. a 94% decrease. you cannot argue with the numbers, the special compared to other sectors. in tucson, which has 50% of all
illegal emigration of the southern border into the -pcountry, operation streamline has not been fully implemented. so it is not a deterrent. for a deterrent to work, people have to know it will be employed. how much would it take in resources to do the same thing that we do in yuma as we do in tucson -- in tucson as we do in yuma? the bottom line is that i can cite the del rio statistics as well, it works. senator mccain and i have offered up but 10-point plan for dealing with this. if you have other ideas, that is fine. these are simply things that are a matter of resources and are not that expensive. as i said in the beginning, i know this panel will address, people who have actually read the law will address the law.
that's not my purpose today. but to least try to explain why arizona finally did what it did and why it has the support of 70% of the people in my own state and 60% around the country, the bottom line is the citizens of america deserve to have the laws enforced by the people hired to enforce the laws. thank you for the opportunity to open this conference today. [applause] >> joining us now, thank you, senator kyl, is the county sheriff, the arizona state representative and an arizona at -- and other areas of estate representative, a founder and executive director of america's voice, the president and ceo of emigration works usa, the president of the hispanic leadership fund, and a member of the manhattan institute. to start this off, a think it is
important to talk about the arizona law to set the stage. we should go back before that -- if you go back to the presidential campaign for the 2000 election, then-senattr barack obama says he will make it a top priority in his first year as president, not only because we have an obligation to secure our borders and get control of who comes in and out of our country, not only because we have to crack down on employers who are abusing undocumented immigrants as of hiring citizens but because we have to bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. barack obama talked about it during the 2008 campaign. everybody ran for president talked about it. all of the people we will looking to speak about this issue had something to say. everybody talked about border control and nothing has happened. we have been having this
discussion since president reagan was in office. low and behold, we come to april, 2010. jan brewer, in interview with someone at another network talk about the law and she says it is illegal to cross the border without having papers. she talks about the thousands of illegal immigrants coming across the border into arizona. what she said as govnor as the state i is easing up arizona schooo dollars, illegal immigration is using up hospital dollars, using up court dollars, using up incarceration dollars and arizona needs to secure the border and then address some kind of immigration reform. my question to the panelists is how did we get from historical immigration reform in 1986 to where we are today?
it is such a highly emotional issue. if you listen to the facts on the ground, from a law- enforcement professor -- law enforcement perspective, what are you dealing with? kyl >> outlined it perfectly. which would spend more time talking about is 10. plan because it puts this back on the federal government and for them to do their jobs and secure the border and what it's going to take as part of that plan. troops, building a fence that has been suspended in the arrzona. where that has been implemented, it has worked. the reason you find is screaming about this issue is we cannot afford to spend this crucial resources to protect our families. now, to go into everything else under the sun as it relates to emigration, why are we standing
up and in law enforcement, it is to say it's part of our job. it is because we live in it and we cannot avoid it. this were in the absence of federal action, it falls to last. what we're dealing withh to give you a sense, we have had kidnappings, murders, rapes and my county the. there are four border counties and senator kyl was correct -- yuma is a secure. we have three others. when you have more than half of all the illegals that enter america come through those three counties, gas for the go? they come to my county. our county is the size of the state of connecticut -- 5400 square miles. i have to under 20 deputies. just a month and a half ago, we had 64 pursuits in just one patrol region. this is -- say that you were driving your car. if a police officer as lights
and sirens blaring behind you, what are you going to do? yield to the right of the road and pullover. these people took off at high rates of speed, and to enjoy trying to cause traffic racks and -- traffic racks and the risk that poses to deputies and people in the vehicles and, our citizens. running red lights, and in the past, these people were not always armed, but now they are. numerous fatalities have occurred because of that. we have a sense of lawlessness in the past four months that is unprecedented. what are we going to do to affect these issues? we have prosecuted cases where young females, teenagers, alleged they were raped multiple times were kidnapped. all of these situations going on
in our state, ourrgoing to address that? as a share of and as police chiefs, we cannot handle this by ourselves anymore. you will have a share of calling for 3000 troops to be deployed in our state if it handle this ourselves. quite frankly, we cannot. why do we need something to happen and why the frustration has occurred to push arizona to act in the absence of appropriate action by the federal government. >> if you are listening to the first time before -- and you hear about people being kidnapped and raped, the large amount of crimes being committed in the state of arizona and arizona actually having to be the state that absorbs the costs of dealing with this, what is the argument against the passage
of this law? >> that's a great question. the incidence of drug running, gunrunning, and violent human smuggling is a real and growing problem in arizona. the problem is that this does not provide tools and resources to law-enforcement and prosecutors to effectively crack down on those crimes. in fact, this legislature under the leadership of governor general or and republicans in the house and senate has decreased by ending or our prime prosecuting agency and it has deprived local counties from doing -- of the resources they need to have effective law enforcement. there are opportunities to actually do state action to help give resources to law- enforcement and prosecutors to crack down on these issues. over the last several years, i have sponsored and passed bipartisan legislation that seeks to give prosecutors and law-enforcement the tools they
need to crack down on violent drop houses, which is where these activities take place. this year, some more tools for police officers and prosecutors to crack down on violent human smuggling. the issue of sex trafficking and sex slavery is a continuing problem between mexico and arizona. the most unfortunate part is that while many of us, i would argue all was in arizona, agree the federal sovereign has abdicated ts responsibility and laughter states in the cold -- the federal government has abdicated its responsibility and let us in the cold, what has happened is state actors have attempted a step forward to fill the gap. when the federal government has failed us, we attempt to try and take hold of the situation on our own. unfortunately, this exceeds the constitutional authority and violates the civil rights and civil liberties of arizonas in five constitutional matters.
at the same time, it does not provide the protection and security that we actually need in our community. >> i want to play devil's advocate here. the sheriff calls you up and says come over to where every lock people up in your county. >> come to florence county and take a look at the number of people we have locked up. he says what we do about finances to deport them, prosecute them, and more importantly, he presents you with a victim of a terrific crime committed by somebody who is in the country illegally. if we get past all of the rhetoric as a representative for
your district, what is the answer? with elections and it's a tough time for incumbents. people are sick not only in washington that the state level of hearing the rhetoric and nothing happening. i'm not picking on you, i'm going to pick and everybody. but what do you say to people who have been victimized by crime in the state of arizona and say we want our borders secure in what these people to stay in their country. i have read the governor's they not only the need comprehensive immigration reform in the state of arizona, but he defined a way in arizona to maintain relations with mexico because it's the largest trading partner for the state of arizona? >> the number one thing to let people know is that 1070 is a non-solution to a very
real problem. nobody will dispute the this problem is real and growing. but this law does not provide any of the things you say we needee. it does not provide a single penny of resources, it does not provide a single tool for prosecutors to effectively crack down on drug running, gunrunning, and violent human smuggling. in some ways, it jeopardize his -- jeopardize the ability of officers to do community policing. the answer unfortunately is that arizona cannot, on its own, fixes problem. i wish we could. frankly, the federal government hasn't done aaything to help us in a long time. we're taking action as we can and there are some activities -- john and i have worked on drop house legislation to get a that was effective and has helped to crack down on the problem.
unfortunately, that will not solve the problem. the federal government has to take action and they have to start by securing our borders so that we know who did go -- in the good folks are and the bad folks are. second, we have to figure out how to settle the status of the 10 million people and lead this country already. many of them are just coming to work. third, we have to address the issue of job and work demand. how do we settle that in a way that's appropriate to meet the needs of our state and country and set up a long-term structure which is effective? in 1986, when the last stride immigration reform, they simply did amnesty and employer sanctions that have no teeth. that's the solution. we have to have a real solution from the federal government that includes those three components. >> thank you. i read something from me that i
found fascinating. i hope it is factual. it is talking about what is happening in arizona -- the better parallel may be birmingham. is that correct? >> i have been getting antsy here as you conduct this conversation because you are pretending it's an either/or. there's some people who are for law enforcemenn will apply and are some people who are against it and putting this hypothetical of the representative going to florence. i think we're talking about -- the debate is so easily polarized as it is one side against the other. it is not that either/or. yes, smuggler violence is a scourge in arizona. yes, a lot is an abomination. yes, the people of arizona are right to be frustrated. yes, ariz. by itself cannot solve the problem.
to make a few distinctions -- smuggler violence is different from immigrant crime. most immigrants are not criminals. most emigrants come to do work. in most cities were immigrants arrived, the berkeley rate goes down. the smugglers are a different matter. everybody on the panel is for getting control of smugglers. but the point is, the law is not a tool to do any of what we need to do. first of all, the mistake about what is it's just going to go after people have committed crimes. the way the law as written, it sounds reasonable, but it gives authority and put pressure on law enforcement officers to go after people that broken minor mints will ordnances like tinted windows and cars parked on their lawns if they think they are immigrants.
>> for people live not actually read law, i have not had the opportunity to read it yet. i know that you cannot wait to read the legislation, but key parts of the law -- the legislature find there's a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration law brought all of arizona and the intent of the law is attrition through enforced and the public policy of state and governments in arizona is to focus on attrition through enforcement of law. it is intended to discourage the unlawful presence of aliens and people and economic activity presently illegally in the united states and for any unlawful stop or detention a law-enforcement officials were reasonable suspicion exists the person is an alien and unlawfully present in the united states, a reasonable attempt
should be made, and practical -- when practicable, to be stopped. i think that is what most people find troubling, whether you believe it is constitutional not. that is where the emotions get too. when you talked about for or against, what is the and that should give us? had we tied to competing interests? >> in the context of a fix for emigration, we are going to secure the border, we're going to -- laugh -- law-enforcement will have carefully controlled roles teleprocessing, we will get rid of smugglers and we will and illegal immigration. those are all parts of what we're trying to do. >> for example, employers -- to lead >> they will be cracking
down on bad apples. >> how are employers that might work with your group, what is their response to the law? written what you've talks about the economic needs. as far as taking the emotion out of this, what are the keys to prosperity for the nation as a whole, i know if it's a path to citizenship -- i want to put words in your mouth. >> the lot is not going to stop people from coming across the border and free of the border patrol and some of focus it on my busboy and your partner to focus on criminals. it's not going to make a much harder for cartels to operate. those cartels are going to go on doing what they're doing as long as it is profitable to bring people to work in arizona and america. it is not going to provide the grower who needs someone to pick up -- to pick lettuce in 120 degree heat. it's not going to provide him
with illegal worker. it is not going to crack down on the bad apple employer who doesn't predict what a legal worker. it is not going to do anything for the 11 million people, some of them who have been here 15 years and are married to americans that haven't been to mexico in a decade and are not going back. the law is not going to solve a single one of those things. >> is this the obama administration's birmingham? >> let somebody else and to that. >> is this the obama administratton's birmingham? you probably have no idea when talking about. [laughter] if you think back to the images of bull, hosing down people, the argument has been that during that time, prior to that time, people were not that focused on civil rights and it forced the president at that time to focus on civil-rights. the analogy i am drawing is what has happened with the passage of
this law in arizona and what seems to be an almost nationwide agreement that federal government has completely dropped the ball on this. will it force the obama administration and congress to deal with the issue? >> i hope so. i hope they get serious about finally because it is just another one in a long list of president obama's failures -- to address this issue as he promised. he actually went in front of various hispanic audiences and told he would address this issue within the first year of his presidency and he has clearly failed to do that as he has failed to do so many of the things. our concern -- >> i don't think we can reasonably say any president in tte last 25 years has done much on this issue. >> right. i will say that at least george w. bush put a lot of political
capital and time and effort into trying to solve something and he came together with senator kyl and a bipartisan group of senators to address the issue. i think that deserves a lot credit despite the fact it was not actually accomplish. but you mentioned civil-rights issues in the '60s. we have been in touch with a lot of people on the ground in arizona, people who i know and trust and agree with on a number of issues, not just immigration but lower taxes. we are conservative organization and promote free markets and limited government. these are people telling incredible horse stories about some of the things that the share of is doing in maricopa county, around the club simply based on race and prosecuting them for the most random of crimes. there are news stories about a guy who was arrested for driving without insurance. the interesting thing is he was
not even driving at the time. i don't know how that works. these are the kinds of things we're hearing from people on the ground, coming out of arizona, and it is certainly of concern. in our view, a lot of this law codifies what the sheriff has already been doing in his reckless behavior in america but county. >> if the sheriff feels when he is doing is enforcing federal law, is what he is doing actually illegal? >> i will leave that for other experts to decide. it is certainly of grave concern, the things we have heard. pact this year's c
embedded conference, you said its dangerous weapon people agree with you but don't vote for them because they think you don't want them. how this going to affect the elections in arizona and nationwide in terms of the republican party and the democratic party's continual fight over gaining the votes of the specs? >> it is devastating. in arizona right now, about 80% of hispanics disagree with this law regardless of party. prior to the lobbying past, ariz. hispanics were the most republican-friendly group of hispanics in any state. now it has completely flipped. that is of grave concern to us. it is extremely frustrating when you are just trying to the bigger picture and it is frankly devastating to the cause of freedom and of limited government to pass laws like
these. >> heather macdonald, listening to what we have heard so far this morning, what is your take? there was a story recently about a young woman who was an illegal citizen in georgia and was pulled over for a minor traffic violation and determined to be here illegally. she was supposed to be deported and there was a lot of up for about that. she had one year of college left to finish, so a decision was made to let her finish her senior year of college and then she will be sent back to mexico. what is your opinion on that? for people is this terribly unfair, so what if she was illegal, she only had one year of college, it was the wrong thing to do to allow her to finish her senior and then send her back home. what would your response to
that? >> that's great question because it does point to what this issue is ultimately all about. what we believe in immigration enforcement or not, whether we believe there should be a penalty for coming in to the country in violation of our national -- national sovereignty and immigration laws and the arguments i have heard against this law are smokescreens. the charge there is racial profiling elements to it is based on not reading the law. you are not allowed to even begin an immigration inquiry unless you have reasonable suspicion, which is a longstanding concept in constitutional law to think somebody is in the cost to -- in the country illegally. the main ground for that is if you are at a traffic stop and don't have a driver's license. the charge is about racial profiling is an insult to local
law-enforcement officers. the federal pre-emption argument are equally speeches. those are smokescreens for what we beliive there should be a penalty. i think it is the president paused birmingham, i think it is a country's birmingham. do we believe that not just felonious illegal aliens, but ordinary criminal aliens across the to the country illegally should face a risk of detection and deportation? if we think not, i think the country is ambivalent about that, let's be honest and say have amnesty, no more interior enforcement. there should be local and forcing and the shouldn't be federal agents and forcing. but if we believe there should be consequences for crossing the country, voluntarily, knowingly and illegally, i would argue that this law is both lawful and
necessary. the real reason people oppose a -- oppose it is because they fear it will work and it will spread to other states. the numbers are clear -- there are 6000 -- how did we get here for 97? we got here because we had -- how did we get here from 1987? we got here because if -- because we offered amnesty and if you can just wait it out, we will make cute beatle and disintegrate the distinction between legal and illegal entry. .
my question is, let's assume that you are a non-white person living in a border state and the eu are asked for id. -- and you are asked for id. within this is a lawful stock or anything else -- whether this is a lawful stop. how does a law enforcement officer determine who may or may not be illegal?
>> first of all, it is worth noting that law-enforcement in arizona is quite divided. the arizona chiefs of police are against this and care about the enforcement of immigration and other laws. the care deeply about the fact that if they drive a wedge between the hispanic community and then sells it will be harder for their public safety efforts to be effective. this false choice is set up. to answer your question, you have a group of young hispanic man -- men walking home from a soccer game. the giddy, there is a disturbance. it is a lawful stopper the policeman says, "excuse me judgment, have you seen any trouble? we are not sure if it is you or someone else." what happens? the police force can be sued if
they do not aggressively enforce the law. >> what is the reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally? >> we have a report of lawbreaking in the area, stops them to question them, they speak with an accent. >> that is not reasonable suspicion. >> that is not? >> wait a minute. right now there are sweeps in latino neighborhoods where volunteer members are stopping hispanics and asking for papers. this is happening under existing law. with the state legislature did was say let's make sure that all the police forces across the nation are pressured into this tiber aggressive approach. there is a reason why 80% of hispanics in arizona are against this. they note with a target on them.
-- they know this puts a target on them. the question is this. are we talking about gun laws, bad laws, -- good laws or bad l aws, good people or bad people. when we talk rugged people who are here illegally, yes there are 11 million of them, and 70% been here longer than a decade and they have lived clean lives. i think this attrition through enforcement is to drive these people either the country which is not a realistic and a good law. a good law would be a comprehensive solution that senator kyl champion richard have border patrol, turn off the jobs magnate with an effective
employer verification system. make sure the people get here study english and get to the back of the citizenship line and reform the system so and is functional and fair. when they say let's secure the border and then the reform, it is just the opposite. you need to deal with illegal hiring, the 11 million people already here, and an outdated system. i am all about ending illegal immigration. however, it seems like you would to have a penalty that will drive 11 million people either the country. that is practical and un- american. >> thank you, frank, for concern -- for confirming my hypothesis. you do not believe in detecting or deporting the people in the country legally. you said maybe, and i have heard opposition to this which is targeting only the most
felonious criminals, but you do not believe in enforcing immigration laws and -- who crossed the border illegally. >> i do. >> really? you except the deportation for -- >> border thousand people per year are being deported for year under -- 400,000 people per year are being deported under obama. 7% of the people being deported are like the little girl who spoke to michelle obama who was worried about her mother being taken away. i want that mother to get legal and to meet criteria so that good person who is contributing anddis rooted here becomes a legal rather than thinking we are going to drive 11 million people live in the country most of whom who are good people. senator kyl said the majority of them are good. >> i am going to invoke my
moderator's writes. i am sure you saw the tape on the news yesterday about the child at a local elementary school here speaking to michelle obama and basically telling the entire nation that her mother does not have papers. i do not know if it is true or not. what would you say to her if they were in the state of arizona? >> so many mis-statements have been made. we got into this problem because in the 1980's, president i deeply admired made a big mistake and legalized illegal immigrants and sent a message worldwide to come here, hang around long enough, and we will reward you. there was no internal enforcement. every president since then has compounded this. here we are 20 or 30 years later and we have 12 million illegals
and we are about to repeat the same mistake. legalize them, not secure the border, no internal enforcement. why? so our grandchildren can be at this podium in 25 years in the same argument? it is ridiculous. a representative said this tool does not give a good -- this bill does not give a good tool to the police. police have been using "stop and question" since 1968 and we are now extending it to the crime of illegal presences in this country. police have ample experience and we are training dollars on a place in the criteria of illegal presence. our offices do not make the determination. that will be made by federal immigration officials who have been trained. it is also suggested that this violates civil rights. this law was changed to the
committee process. we have learned from other states did that this law has ample protection to protect civil rights. we specifically say no racial profilingg no ethnicity or nationality used illegally to gather suspicion. that is not in federal law. if president obama thinks this law is draconian, he should look at his own. we added the new racial profiling. he does not have that. maybe he should change the federal law. we had arguments from other people. police say you will distract them from more important details. you only have to question someone with reasonable suspicion when practical to do so. detectives have said that investigate -- witnesses will not talk to us. at the very end then you say, the only time a police officer can ask someone about their immigration status is if they jump over two hurdles.
first, the person question has to have broken and other law. during that contact, only if there is independent reasonable suspicion, can the opposite question about immigration status. in federal status cumming you do not have to first commit another crime. they can -- in federal status, you do not have to first commit another crime. i do not know what president obama is thinking about. i can only assume he gets his advice from his attorney general and secretary of homeland security who have not even read the bill. the misinformation about this bill is disgraceful. that is why so many people are upset. and has been misrepresented. this started when our own off local newspapers who do not like this law gave this the worst band. that was read nationwide and backed up by media oliver. now we cannot get the toothpaste back in the tube and it is a real mess. this is the worst nightmare for people who do not want it --
these laws enforced in want to give them amnesty. there are 12 other states talking about adopting this law. this boycott is not an intimidating other states into not doing what we are doing, protecting our citizens in this situation where the federal government has refused to protect us. arizona will continue to protect the citizens with this law. we will not repealed the law. obama, that is the way it is. >> i would just like to ask a question. i would like to turn the question on them that their own governor alluded to which is what do illegal immigrants look like? how dooyou tell who is an illegal immigrant? we understand the point and it is written in the law that there does have to be some sort of legal stop before the law enforcement officer speaks to the person. >> i can answer that.
>> let me finish my question. we think committing a crime, speeding, but in explicit memos between the people who wrote the law and past that, they talked about tinted windows, cars on blocks, zoning ordinances, many living together in a house. that is breaking in his book code. -- that is breaking municipal code. accept it has to be and they call stock. what will be the grounds for reasonable suspicion if it is not color, and accent, and the way you look? what is illegal immigrant behavior? writing in a crowded van? -- riding in a van?
>> if you have any form of government ied, the inquiry and there. you are required to carry a driver's license if you are driving. if you do not have one -- >> why did they not write the law to say that when you are asked for an arizona driver's license you get reported? >> i wrote part of the law. let me answer. reasonable suspicion is and no one factor. short of seeing someone in an orange jumpsuit running away from a federal immigration detention center i cannot think of anything, appearance was alone, that says this person is an illegal immigrant. that is not the way it happens in the real world. multiples fax -- police officers will look at multiple fax and will question the person, get inconsistent answers. they will be caught in lies.
it is a slow process of making observations. >> will i ever get questioned? people who look like us? >> are you going to break the log? then you will get questioned. >> the moderator has a question. please, then we have three other people who want to add to the discussion. listening to the three of you down there, it raises the question as a person of color that i want to ask each of the -- just a yes or no please. if you were asked for ied and you happen to lead your driver's license at home, there is a child emergency in your driver's license is in your purse, just the fact that someone stops you and asks for id, which you find that to be revolting? >> no, i would not.
>> why are they stopping you? >> it does not matter. >> it does matter. >> in arizona, it is the law that you must have a photo identification. i have arrested numerous people of various races, genders, sexual orientation who did not have identification because that is the law. >> there is a story reported about a student from new mexico, where i guess you do not have to have a driver's license, that was studying at arizona state. what happens to that student, he is of hispanic descent, does not have a driver's license, does not carry his papers, so what happens if he gets stopped and he does not have a student id or driver's license which is not required in new mexico. what happens? >> most of the time of people do
not have identification, here is what we do in a 2729. when we go back to our patrol car most of the time i would not arrest someone as a patrol jeopardy when i ran your information and make sure there is no warrant for your arrest. if we ask additional questions just to verify who that person is, identifying features. most of the time an officer does not address that person. it does not mean because you have a mexican national driver's license or identification that we slap handcuffs on you for this class i misdemeanor. an mes to get to ask other questions. that is where the reasonable suspicion comes in. wait a minute. we are the same cops throughout america. i have 200 in my full times baa's resume full-time staff who is latino. -- i have 200 and in my full-
time staff that is latina. for us to put the components in to build a probable cause to suspend your constitutional rights and freedoms. we can even lawfully take someone's life. yet we are questioning the fact here in america whether we've -- we are living in a lawless state where local law enforcement, our protectors that we entrust, that we cannot put the building blocks together to get to reasonable suspicion? of course we can do this. >> officer, with all due respect, we all rely on law we also have good law. we do trust you and that is important. but bad laws that encourage bad behavior cannot be there. your >> why is it ok for the
federal government? we think they are more comfortable -- more responsible to work under federal law? why is it the feds are better than it local cops? this is an insult towards police officers. and is an artificial distinction because there are not and left. we can say the fed can do it because there are only 6000 of them. if you say the locals can say we are part of the continuum of the rule of law and believe this is a country of laws and that there are people waiting to come into the country legally and they deserve priority over those who are here illegal. if we allow the local to participate, then we actually have a small chance of making
attrition work and creating a chance that they will get detected if they are here illegally. >> i have a follow-up. there are not enough irs agents to support tax law so would you support the law enforcement officials to enforce irs regulations? [laughter] if we do not have a problem of 20 million -- >> at least. >> rep? >> i do not want to get too wonky. there are three things we need to point out that are salacious the stated in john's description. the first, on page four of h-p
2162 there is language that specifically allows law enforcement, and requires them, to utilize the same standard for questioning into a person's status for a criminal act. when reasonable suspicion exists after a lawful stop to inquire into the status of the person in which they are apprehending are stopping, and applies to all civil code ordinances. i want to be clear. john said people would only the question when reasonable suspicion existed which there are several factors in which one could conclude it exists. he said it would only happen when someone commits a crime. that is just not true. the civil code violations included things like someone calling their neighbor because their dog is barking too loudly, the grass is overgrown and in their yard. i have a copy of the e-mail from
the attorney who actually drafted that portion of the legislation and i would be happy to provide that individuals. >> what tops respond to those calls? -- what cops respond? >> they do respond. i was a social worker in the community with a healthy emmitt rep population. some police have responded to calls of that nature for very good reason. -- i was a social worker in a community with a healthy immigrant population. in some cases it is appropriate. >> your analysis is totally wrong. reasonable suspicion has to do with presence in the country illegally. it has to be based on the officer, if it is a misdemeanor, the officer has to observe the violation. during that contact if the
officer has reasonable suspicion they are here illegally they can pursue the immigration status. >> that is what i said. >> if we could give mario -- >> i want to make sure mr. lopez gets a chance to make his point. >> the second issue is equal protection issue. and says the police officer can stop for a secondary traffic offense in arizona is the purpose of the stock is to further the immigration issues they believe are presented. in normal law in arizona you cannot stop someone for a secondary traffic offense. if you have to have a primary offense. you are treating to class's separately. that is a clear legal protection issue. the last issue is that there are a number of people who are here illegally with permission who have no paper work whatsoever to prove that. the wife of a visa holder who is
here on a skilled worker visa, the wife of that person has the lawful ability to be here but has the paperwork, and none, proving their legal status. as such, that person, as admitted by the sponsor of the legislation, could be subject to detention for two or three hours while of their status is being determined since they have no papers. that violates our fourth amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. >> thank you. i want to hear from mario lopez. >> there is one other section here that i read it. i did -- parts of my copy. it put me to sleep a couple of times the. i am not an attorney. there is a section about knowingly transporting someone who is here illegally. our concern is -- if i take my
80-year-old grandmother who crossed illegally in 1965 to church on sunday morning and i know she crossed here illegally then suddenly i am a criminal and can be prosecuted. >> that is not true. >> i have that right here. >> continue to read and it goes on to state -- >> under federal law, knowingly transporting and illegal as a federal crime. in arizona, you have to know the person is illegal and be committing another act. one more example of how the arizona statutes have more protections for civil liberties than the federal law. >> since you are great on civil liberties i assume you are against which they are doing in maricopa county. >> i wanted to ask you, sheriff,
why the difference in enforcement of immigration laws? how do you account for the difference in how immigration law in arizona is enforced verses at this sheriff? >> in fact, throughout arizona there is a lack of uniformity. this is an aspect of the law. a police chief just cannot wash their hands and say this is a federal issue. a lot of us have come along same we can no longer, in the absence of action, do nothing. i serve as the president of the insurance association for arizona. i see this as a tool. i do not see this getting solved any time soon. we have to do something. to correct the record, are deputies% to work in partnership with him. but they were not crimes which and it was actual enforcement
and traffic stops. and the everyone there was a primary reason. i can tell you this. that night we assisted, i was there, we arrested more caucasian than any other nationality. people who had warrants for their arrest, violating the law. we profile criminal behavior. we do not profile race, color, or national origin. we are one of the dq protect -- few professions who swear to protect the constitution and we are trained in the fourth protection for unlawful search and seizure. do we make mistakes? we do just like you do and everyone else. we hold them to account. i think this good argument and discussion we are having will never get to -- we will never get to where we are all lying to been. we are a nation of immigrants.
we need to dissipate the anger about the lack of security on the border, we are on a hamster wheel. i would ask for everyone to get behind this, kyl-mccain plan. >> thank you. i am going to ask a question. i does want a yes or no answer. the question is after listening to all of the debates we have had among you today is this, in fact, our country's birmingham? do they have to do something about immigration reform despite the fact that we have at midterm elections in november. do they need to ignore the
elections and a deal with this, yes or no? >> yes. >> yes but do not hold your breath. >> yes it is a crisis. >> yes but not likely before the election. >> note it is not a birmingham, yes it is a crisis. never before the election because they do not want the house is republican. >> i think this is a litmus test whether you believe in immigration refreshment or not. arisen and they're making the issue clear. -- arizonans are making the issue clear. >> yes, they should have kyl and mccain take care of this comprehensive reform. >> thank you to the panel. [applause]
>> when voters say "the republican candidate, what will you do about"? the about all they have to offer is the same old economic economy. >> the head of the campaign committee for the midterm elections today on "newsmakers." >> in some ways, every class gives you a sense of what the country is sinking. terrance samuel looks behind the institution of the u.s. senate, "the upper house." >> the interior secretary can sell azar took another step -- ken salazar took another step with the offshore drilling.
the minerals management service will be broken into three parts. this is in direct response to the gulf of mexico oil spill. this is about half an hour. >> all right. thank you very much for coming this afternoon to the department of the interior. today i signed a secretarial order that will lead to the fundamental restructuring of the minerals management service. it will restructure the divisions and the three conflicting missions into three separate entities with independent missions. the secretary of the interior treated this by ministerial -- secretarial order a long time ago. since then, they have managed
the collection of over two under $10 billion in revenues for programs including oil, coal, and renewable energy resources. we're tasked with implementing and policing conventional and renewable energy resources of when the outer continental shelf. it is responsible for overseeing offshore energy operations and insuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations. these three missions, energy development, enforcement, and revenue collection are conflicting missions and must be separated. today i am ordering the division of in the mess into three distinct entities -- the three divisions of mms into three entities. first the bureau of ocean energy
management will be under the supervision of the assistant secretary for land and minerals. the bureau will be responsible for the sustainable development of the outer continental shelf, energy resources both conventional and renewable. they both carry at resource evaluation, planning, and other activities related to leasing. they will focus not only on oil and gas as mms has done, but also response in developing our offshore renewable energy resources. this bureau will help us build the clean energy future of our nation. second, we will create the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement. this separate bureau will be overseen by the assistant secretary for land and minerals and they will be responsible for insuring the comprehensive oversight, safety, environmental ppotection in all offshore energy activities. this will be the police of
offshore oil and gas operations. this bureau will ensure that the laws and regulations are being enforced and our environment is being protected. finally, in another part of the department of the interior we move from msm -- mms to an office of natural resources revenue. in that office, the personnel and director will be responsible for mms's royalty and revenue management function including the collection and distribution of revenue, auditing, and assets management. this will ensure that the american people are getting every dollar that they should under the responsible development of our public resources. this will be the framework for the reorganization. in the secretarial order i signed earlier today, i
directed wilma lewis, an adviser chris henderson to deliver to me within 30 days a schedule for imitation of this reorganization. as they move forward, we will work closely with the members of the united states congress and with the office of management and budget to implement these reforms. this reorganization is vital to our ongoing reform efforts. they deserve an organizational structure that is the mission they are asked to carry out. they will get greater clarity for their roles and responsibilities. they will be able to develop the nation's energy resources. these reforms are not the first nor will they be the last. beginning in january 2009, we
established new standards for in the wake of scandals of the past. we started a program because we felt it invited the kinds of scandals that the agency had seen before. we developed the agency's mandates so it was not just focused on oil and gas but it also included offshore wind and renewable energy production which has a move forward quickly in the last year. we implemented many recommendations of the inspector general accounting office and a separate commission that had been formed. the proposed offshore leases in the arctic and other areas as well. we established a clear process for determining which areas on
the after continental shelf may be appropriate for development. we will continue to work tirelessly to change how the department of the interior does business. we will make sure that we are holding energy companies accountable for their responsibility. we make sure the american people are getting a fair return on their resources. we will work tirelessly to protect the safety of workers and the american environment. joining me today are the people who will be responsible for helping me in the implementation of this order, dietary -- deputy secretary of the interior who has been in charge of what we have been working on with the reforms of gender of the department, will not lewis the assistant secretary for land and minerals -- wilma lewis, the
assistant secretary for land and minerals. there are focused on the recovery dollars for the department of the interior. reid that is not here today reaches of a medical issue. -- rita is not here today. with that, i open this up for questions. >> how many people currently work for mms on enforcement issues? >> there are a total of 1700 employees within mms. the organization as it will be restructured will have about 700 that will now report to the assistant secretary for policy management and revenue collection. as a resource to the numbers we will tighten the nut during this 30 day review. we will probably end up with approximately 300 people in the
environmental safety portion. the vermont -- the remainder will be in offshore energy. there will be others. we have asked for additional resources for inspectors in the president's proposal to congress. and asked for additional resources for inspections. our budget for 2011 calls for additional inspectors. we will decentralizing those lease functions within that bureau. >> the final review on the moratorium on may 28, will that moratorium be extended past that date? i gather there is no chance they will be confirmed after that. what will be the minimum changes we will see in the gulf of mexico? >> peter, those are questions
which are under consideration. but the president has asked is that we are not saying no to further oil and gas development but we want to make sure that it moves forward in a way that we can be confident in the safety with respect to those efforts going on. you will see in the several weeks ahead the adjustments we announce as they are appropriate as we move on with the program. >> turning to the gulf coast, it has come out that the coast guard has had access to 14 or so cameras that bp has been monitoring. was your office where the footage was available? if so, why was it not made avvilable to the public? >> the footage was available.
our orders to bp was that they be transferred to everything they have. my and your understanding is that those materials are available and some of them were being played in the commiees. >> it has been rolling since the beginning. congress -- the coast guard has been seeing that. >> there is no doubt that that information will be made available to the public and. the presidential commission on the investigation will obviously have access to that information. they will have access to that information. bp has committed they will make the information available. there ought to be no fear that there will be any stone left unturned to get to the bottom of the root causes.
>> i had a couple of questions. will mms functions be funded by the royalty stream is as they are now? the weaknesses and flaws in this structure were known before the gulf oil spill. why did you wait until april 20 to move on this? >> first, in terms of how we will fund the new structures, this will take the revenue that currently is coming in that funds the 1700 employees and all of their work to. in addition to that there will be the additional revenues that we have asked for including the additional revenue which we have imposed with respect to the application fees to permit the drill. that money will be what supports this organizational
structure. they identified funding the policing activities, the oversight committees, with revenues from those activities themselves will remain. is that what you are saying? >> jonathan, what we are doing is separating the revenue collection functions which only mood -- moved out of land and minerals to a very different part of the department to have budgetary and department responsibilities as a result of this executive order. that will be separated from the other efforts of the functions of the minerals minister service. the functions that were leasing at the american properties for oil and gas development as well as the environmental policing of those activities. there will be put into a separate agency to focus on
those functions. how exactly does revenue streams will be matched up in the number of people that will go into these bureaus is why we are taking the 30 days to get this done. i want to get this done right. i have to remind you and others as well. they are working in helping to restore this tragedy by plugging the well and doing other things. we will take the next 30 days in these places. we will speak to them about these changes we are making. with respect to why did we wait until averell -- after april 20 at? i came into this department on
january 21, 2009. we have been working nonstop, the ethics standards of put into place, the review and personnel acts that have been taken are standing up. our agenda has been ongoing. this has been one of the items we have been working on as well. when you look at the fact that this organization that brings in $13 billion per year into the end stage treasury that his response ability for energy development on the outer continental shelf, it is important that in has the kind of organization of the mission.
beyond the secretarial order that have signed and the reorganization we are taking here, we're creating organic legislation for the new agency. >> steve power, "wall street journal." can you cite an example of how this has caused a conflict with the safety enforcement side. is there an example you can cite or is it an issue of -- perception? are you saying the revenue stream is one of the things will be studying over the next 30 days whether that should be divorced from the funding? thank you. >> to the three people who will be taking a look at those issues and where the employees are going to go, i wouud get
more information to you on that. on the question for the separation here, it is important that we have a government that avoids even the perception of potential conflict. when you look at the fact that we generate $13 billion per year, the same group generating the $13 billion is also responsible for doing everything else with respect to auditing, enforcement, and it is in my view an important change to change but these functions. >> hello, secretary. thank you for holding this press conference.
i have a question about your testimony yesterday regarding the possibility of raising the liability cap. that would be raised to $10 billion. it seems that someone say you have concerns about raising and that high because of the effect would have on small companies and that is running counter to what some democrats have been proposing as far as having an unlimited cap. could you put it -- could you clarify your position? >> there are two positions. with respect to this particular incident, the liability capssare not play because those have been waived. they said they will be responsible for every penny and they do not intend to hide behind. let there be no doubt that bp
will be responsible for not only stopping this bill but cleaning it up and compensating the american people for any damages including natural resource damages who will be fully compensated. that is what we have here. with respect to changing the law going forward, the question of the bar where you get to the capture, the president's package said we should be changing the cap. those will take place so that we end up with the right number in place. >> are you concerned that $10 billion would be too high and that it would hhrt in the gulf?
>> we are looking at that issue with respect to what the right numbers should be. i do not have any more information to tell you the other that there is an ongoing to vacation with the members of congress so that we arrive at a number that is the right number. one more question for the fun. >> could you explain why you are doing three now and only one week ago you were doing two? i am not sure and stand the need to run -- the need to separate the third. >> the revenue collection is being moved completely out of the land and mineral section of the department in been put into policy and management that is a group of about 700 employees that collect revenues and only in the offshore but onshore. it goes beyond oil and gas but
other minerals found in the public domain. that is a treasury revenue collection function that is there. within the energy development part of the department, land and minerals are separated out into the two functions were described last week. that is function that will relate to the planning and the leasing with respect with resources and the function that relates to the policing function which is providing the oversight with respect to any of those activities. that is why we have organized did in the sky. i will take a few more questions from here. go ahead. >> thank you very much. a question on safety and enforcement. my question is will they have any new enforcement powers for the future. we have heard that some have better safety records than
others. for those that do not have safety records, will they be able to drill or not people to drill on future releases? did you happen to notice thatliz -- i happened to notice the liz is not here with you. >> your first question? >> enforcement powers. do you have to go back to congress and asked for more? >> the report we're working on which it david hayes and steve lacker are leading will have a number of issues relating to safety. there are a number of other
features being looked at. the standards will essentially be policed by this section. and in terms of a company proxy pass -- a company's passed record, in exercising an oversight or investigatory function that is something they will be looking at. mms has given now thousands of citations for violations of regulation. that function will continue into the future under this new reorganization. as we move forward with looking at organic legislation it may be that some of those standards will be redefined in new legislation. in connection with your second question relating to press.
-- to chris and liz. i have to say part of the reason i hired her to read director a mms is because she had no relation to industry. you can look at her record from harvard to brown and her work has been in the department of the interior and on the hill. she brought in a fress perspective. that perspective has helped all of us move forward with the reforms which include the ethics reform and a whole host of other things. we will need three very strong people to run these three agencies. she is certainly a very strong person and we will see how she fits in with the agency. she is not here because she is testifying before a committee.
>> and jim with a bloomberg news. two quick questions. when you think about what the president called a "real or perceived conflict of interest." is there anything in this reorganization that restricts are limits that -- that restricts or limits that interaction? is there any firewall there? my second question is yesterday in your testimony you referred to some push back from the industry on some of the changes you are proposing. i wonder if those are recent push fax or is that going back since when you first came into the department. when are the company's upset about --what are they upset about?
>> we have in place strong ethics standards. we have in place strong regulatory programs that are comprehensive and relative to the efforts. some of them may change as we move forward and develop the reports to the president with respect to safety. we will make sure there are no at the "conflicts between the people who are policing and those enforcing the law. any additional changes to need to be make, we will look at the ethics provisions and we are open to that. when i look back, we have had a zero tolerance policy since i became the secretary of the interior. that is the people who are not working here today because of those ethical standards.
with respect to the ongoing, if you will, friction between the department of the interior and the oil and gas industry, you will be amazed to know that sometimes it flares up. i made some statements three or four months ago that they needed to understand that they were no longer the kings of the world and there were no longer in charge of the candy store. that is what has gone on for the last seven months or so as we have been focused on the right kinds of balance. you will find that balance starting at the very beginning. i had secretary hazel gluck to utah -- secretary hayes go to utah. we were criticized because we
can solve those lease sales. that was at the beginning of last year could that -- to conduct a thorough review that the prior administration had opened up everything. we felt a 60 the -- -- --. was sufficient. -- wii celgene 60 day review period was sufficient. we know oil and gas will be a priority in this country for many years to come. we need to have an oil and gas industry to help us to allow our economy and energy needs. we need to make sure it is done in a way to protect workers and the environment. this reorganization will help us do that. thank you very much rendell --
thank you very much. >> tonight on c-span, john mitchell marks following his reelection to the coast of british house of commons speaker. we will hear from the new british prime minister david cameron and the acting labour leader. then the new chancellor, george osborn, gives his first major speech on the british economy. the chancellor talks about cutting public spending and reducing the corporate tax rate. that is tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> weeks after the british
election which produced a new prime minister and a coalition government, queen elizabeth's ii will formally announce her government's legislative agenda for the new session. we travel from buckingham palace, parliament, to the house of lords for one of britain pocks in the celebrated events. that will be live on c-span2. >> another in a series of congressional hearings on the gulf of mexico oil spill was held in the house. witnesses including bp american chairman whose company has assumed responsibility for the spill and cleanup costs. from transocean, the drillingiv- company that owned the rig that exploded in april. this is on the house transportation committee. >> in the tradition of our committee